Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of the original defendant Shankar Mahada Kardile, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge-2, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2019, which confirmed the decree for specific performance of contract passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ashti in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 2012. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15-06-2006 executed by the original defendant in respect of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The petitioners contended that the findings of the courts below were perverse and that the agreement was not proved. The High Court, after examining the records, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. The court observed that the first appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and affirmed the trial court's decree. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Article 227 - The High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 1-17)
B) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Section 96 CPC - The first appellate court is the final court of fact and its findings, if based on evidence, are binding on the High Court under Article 227. The court held that the appellate court had correctly affirmed the trial court's decree for specific performance. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for specific performance of contract are perverse or suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Article 227 jurisdiction
- Perversity
- Jurisdictional error
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 48
19 WRIT PETITION NO. 3863 OF 2022
Shankar Mahada Kardile (died through L.Rs.)
Narayan Premraj Chorbele & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 challenging concurrent findings in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court confirming the trial court's decree for specific performance.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that the findings of the courts below were perverse and that the agreement to sell was not proved.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge Senior Division, Ashti) decreed the suit for specific performance in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 2012. The first appellate court (District Judge-2, Beed) dismissed the appeal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2019, confirming the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court are perverse or suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and that the agreement to sell was not proved.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no interference was warranted under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error.
Judgment Excerpts
The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error.
The High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
Procedural History
The respondent-plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 2012 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ashti, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15-06-2006. The suit was decreed. The petitioners (defendants) appealed to the District Judge-2, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2019, which was dismissed. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
